Words cannot be unread – but I sometimes wish they could.
The proof is not in the pudding, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
One does not “go direct”. Go to gaol. Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. Take the direct route if you wish, but go directly.
Mr. Clarkson, if something is 4 times greater than 1, it is 5, not 4.
I of haveten thought that Terry Pratchett’s least useful contribution to the literary word lies in the abuse have “of”.
There is too much loose use of “loose”. I fear we may lose the correct meaning.
Little Johnny went to the shops and brought some pies. I wonder if he bought them or was taking them there to sell ?
Clothes may be made of cloths.
They’re, there, their. It’s all better now.
Forensically sound(ing off) 
Generally yes (and some of them make my flesh creep), though ‘go direct’ is a touch more contentious.
I recently saw a blog post about this (via Michael Rosen’s Facebook feed), in connection with the proposed new grammar tests. There are lots of places where the use of the adverb form -ly is looser, as in, “Tyger, tyger, burning bright”. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t prefer ‘go directly’ in most case; it’s just that sometimes there might be a little more wriggle room. Even that font of knowledge, Fowler, wasn’t averse to bending the rule where elegance and flow were best served.
ds
September 13, 2013
In order to choose to ignore a “rule”, one should first understand that rule and its normal application. A test is not about what is common accepted, it is about demonstrating understanding of something whether one agrees with it or not. (see what I did there ? )
I saw the blog post – IMNSHO, the problem could have been resolved by the addition of a single comma.
marshalla99
September 13, 2013